Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114188 Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9525 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mithilesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Shukla,Prabhakar Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harsh Vardhan Gupta Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Harsh Vardhan Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned suspension order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the respondent no.3, District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi and further prayer to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Class-IV employee in Junior High School, Kara, Block-Kara, District Kaushambi and pay salary month by month. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee on 20.05.2010 on compassionate ground. When the death cum retirement gratuity was not paid to the petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased employee, the petitioner filed Writ A No.14141 of 2024 before this Court, which was disposed of by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.08.2024 directing the respondent no.3, District Basic Education Officer, Kaushambi, to decide the claim of the petitioner. As the direction issued by the Hon'ble Court was not complied with, therefore, the contempt petition was filed. Annoyed by the aforesaid, the petitioner has been placed under suspension on the charge that he has tried to take away the shares of the other legal heirs of the deceased employee. Challenging the impugned suspension order, he submits that the same has been passed only to harass the petitioner and being annoyed against the order passed in the contempt petition filed by the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner has embezzled the shares of the other legal heirs of the deceased employee, therefore, impugned suspension order is arbitrary, illegal and may be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for respondent-BSA submits that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order impugned as the earlier writ petition was filed with prayer to pay death cum retirement gratuity to the petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased employee along with interest. As the petitioner wanted to take away the shares of other legal heirs of the deceased employee as informed by other legal heirs, therefore, he has been placed under suspension only giving him opportunity to place his case that he has not done any such thing. The fact that the earlier writ petition was filed with the prayer directing the respondents to pay retirement gratuity to the petitioner as well as other legal heirs also go to show the intention of the petitioner. 5. It is a trite law that the suspension is not a punishment. The Supreme Court in the case of Public Services Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104, has held that ordinarily the High Court should not stay suspension, transfer and termination orders. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court that the suspension order has been passed in violation of any rule or is based on malafide. Accordingly, no interference is called for. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the second respondent-Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj to complete the disciplinary proceedings/enquiry, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months subject to cooperation of the petitioner. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Rahul. Digitally signed by :- RAHUL GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad